Hearing in eight species of northern Canadian freshwater fishes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The hearing thresholds of eight fish species from northern Canada were measured using auditory evoked potential techniques. The species with the best hearing was the lake chub Couesius plumbeus, followed by the longnose sucker Catastomus catastomus, both which had relatively sensitive hearing over the frequency range tested from 100 to 1600 Hz. The remaining species (troutperch Percopsis omiscomaycus, nine‐spined stickleback Pungitius pungitius, pike Esox lucius, spoonhead sculpin Cottus ricei, burbot Lota lota and broad whitefish Coregonus nasus) all showed most sensitivity to low frequencies (<400 Hz) and had relatively insensitive high frequency hearing. The two species with the best hearing are otophysan fishes with connections between the swimbladder and inner ear. The spoonhead sculpin lacks a swimbladder, while the other non‐otophysan species have swimbladders, but no specialized connection to the inner ear. These results can be used to predict the potential impact of anthropogenic noise, such as seismic air gun blasts, on hearing in these species. The species with the most sensitive hearing (lake chub and longnose sucker) are most likely to be affected by activities such as seismic air gun surveys.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".